tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2381405886085774934..comments2018-02-22T05:00:43.369+00:00Comments on The IPKat: BMG v Cox - when does an ISP lose its safe harbour protection?Rosie Burbidgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04620450399931331172noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-47935461326216395982018-02-06T07:53:03.765+00:002018-02-06T07:53:03.765+00:00The court only briefly described the &quot;settlem...The court only briefly described the &quot;settlement language&quot;, since it did not play a significant legal role in this case. Here is the part you are looking for:<br /><i><br />&quot;Rightscorp also asks the ISP to forward the notice to the allegedly infringing subscriber, since only the ISP can match the IP address to the subscriber’s identity. For that purpose, the notice contains a settlement offer, allowing the alleged infringer to pay twenty or thirty dollars for a release from liability for the instance of infringement allegedin the notice. Cox has determined to refuse to forward or process notices that contain such settlement language. When Cox began receiving Rightscorp notices in the spring of 2011 (before Rightscorp had signed BMG as a client), Cox notified Rightscorp that it would process the notices only if Rightscorp removed the settlement language. Rightscorp did not do so.&quot;</i>Mirko Brüßhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03822645338065016379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-45250579354135351522018-02-05T15:28:30.769+00:002018-02-05T15:28:30.769+00:00Was there any discussion of the &quot;settlement l...Was there any discussion of the &quot;settlement language&quot; in this case? We saw a major uptick in &quot;speculative invoicing&quot; in Canada after a notice requirement became part of our law. I wonder if this also seen in the &#39;States, and what the courts&#39; views were.David Collier-Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16930520917352746721noreply@blogger.com